oldreliable67 said:
Ah, so you're 10 to 1 was a SWAG?
Since you asked, lets take a look at some of the court rulings:
> The Second Circuit in United States v. Duggan, 743 F.2d 59 (1984), a terrorism case in which the court, among other rulings, upheld the constitutionality of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which was adopted in 1981. The court wrote:
"Prior to the enactment of FISA, virtually every court that had addressed the issue had concluded that the President had the inherent power to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence information, and that such surveillances constituted an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment."
> In 2002, the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review decided Sealed Case No. 02-001. This case arose out of a provision of the Patriot Act that was intended to break down the “wall” between law enforcement and intelligence gathering. The Patriot Act modified Truong’s “primary purpose” test by providing that surveillance under FISA was proper if intelligence gathering was one “significant” purpose of the intercept. In the course of discussing the constitutional underpinnings (or lack thereof) of the Truong test, the court wrote:
"The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. It was incumbent upon the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it. We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power. The question before us is the reverse, does FISA amplify the President’s power by providing a mechanism that at least approaches a classic warrant and which therefore supports the government’s contention that FISA searches are constitutionally reasonable."
That is the current state of the law. The federal appellate courts have unanimously held that the President has the inherent constitutional authority to order warrantless searches for purposes of gathering foreign intelligence information, which includes information about terrorist threats. Furthermore, since this power is derived from Article II of the Constitution, the FISA Review Court has specifically recognized that it cannot be taken away or limited by Congressional action.
There is a good summary of these and other relevant court cases
here.
That being the case, the NSA intercept program, which consists of warrantless electronic intercepts for purposes of foreign intelligence gathering, is legal.
Twice you attributed this statement "The only scholars I have read that agreed with the AG's opinion were either known conservatives, or worked for a Republican administration in the past." to me, it was said by another chatter, not myself.
The site you linked, said numerous times things like:
"So all searches and seizures of Americans or their property (including, as the courts have appropriately ruled, interceptions of telephonic and electronic communications) must be reasonable."
[Emphasis added.] While acknowledging that American governments had conducted warrantless surveillance in internal security cases "for more than one-quarter of a century," the Court held such surveillance unconstitutional under the circumstances presented.
It should be noted, too, that the Court did not hold that in domestic security cases, warrants are always required; it merely rejected the government's assertion of a blanket exemption for all such surveillance.
====
The concern again, is when US persons are a target of the communications intercetps.
NOT foriegn powers, not Iranian terrorists in Afghanistan. not canadians in Canada.
US PERSONS.
it's generally accepted, under the law, the president can spy on about 6,000,000,000 people on the planet without a warrant, so long as a US person in not part of the communications intercept.
I don't feel my simple question was answered. It does me no good to read through pages and pages and pages and pages of imformation concerning the presidents authority to conduct surviellence on forign powers or foriegn persons. I am not a foriegner, I am a US citizen, and would like to know the law concerning the specific aspect of the state's authority to spy on US citizens, without a warrant.
Of many of those rulings, the court decides to skirt the issue and not answer the question. I think under the law, and limitation of the constitution that the question is satisfactorily answered. The preisdent can't search and seize unreasonably, anything to do with americans.
Probable cause is reasonable, generally because there is actual witnessing, or inherent need, or something to be searched.
Suspicion because Joe Schmoe talks to Haji in Germany is not reasonable, it's paranoid, and seriously ****ing dangerous.
the purpose of the consitution was to limit government authority, if parts are interpreted to have absolute authority, regardless of courts and legislation, it makes the consitution useless, and we do live in anarchy now.
Rule of law is useless, if there is no limit to law.
If congress and the president have no limits in their authority, why bother having written the consitution? Why not just write, "the us government will have a congres that must include two senators from every state. It will have a president, and a judiciary who's job it is to agree with the preisdent and congress." instead of all this pretense for rights, justice and law?
make the *****ing president king and be done with it then, that's what's being argued for.
this is rediculous, that people would even argue in favor of their own subjugation. Slave touting the virtues of slavery. pure insanity, no humanity.